If the EA store sold a second house for each account for 9.99 or 19.99 would you buy?

[MoonglowMerchant]

Now that the process of fixing RoT is finally in motion, the last obstacle to a population increase on Siege is the limitation of one house per account.

Of course you wouldn't have to place the extra house on Siege, you could place it on any shard. However, it would provide an option for those interested in a different UO experience.

Oh, and it would make money for EA. They like that.

 

[XavierArcanus]

Would it be a recurring cost? Because they most likely would see a rather large drop in subscriptions if it wasn't. All of those house-holding accounts would get dropped in no time.

 

[MoonBeam[TBD]]

Now would that be a one time payment or a monthly charge?

If its a monthly charge i'll say no.

 

[Sneaky Que]

We have this already, its called a 2nd account

Seriously though, your idea is a good one, but ONLY if the 2nd house had to be placed on a DIFFERENT shard, ie. only 1 house per shard still.

 

[Shamus Turlough]

Now that the process of fixing RoT is finally in motion, the last obstacle to a population increase on Siege is the limitation of one house per account.

Of course you wouldn't have to place the extra house on Siege, you could place it on any shard. However, it would provide an option for those interested in a different UO experience.

Oh, and it would make money for EA. They like that.

Count me as a resounding YES! Due to the migration of some of our guild into the real world, I find our guild town losing houses. I would love to buy an extra house for my 5 accounts. That's 50-100 bucks they would make off little old me alone.

 

[MoonBeam[TBD]]

I'd love an extra house per account do design and play with now that i have a castle but paying more a month i wouldnt be able to do... unless thats a one time payment

 

[MoonglowMerchant]

Would it be a recurring cost? Because they most likely would see a rather large drop in subscriptions if it wasn't. All of those house-holding accounts would get dropped in no time.

Maybe...

If I have two houses now, I can pay for one account one month and the other account the next month. So, EA is only getting about 13 dollars a month from me.

If I could have an extra slot, I could but both houses on the same account, keep that account open each month. EA would get the same monthly fee, plus the money I paid them to get the second slot.

 

[love2winalot]

Remember all the tokens we got when 8th age came out? In SA box, there should be a 2nd House token.

 

[drinkbeerallday]

I say one time payment to have an extra house on Siege or Mugen. Extra house overall would just mean less subs and more 18x18 everywhere.

Even that might be dangerous because Siege may fill up with real estate speculators.

 

[MoonglowMerchant]

I say one time payment to have an extra house on Siege or Mugen. Extra house overall would just mean less subs and more 18x18 everywhere.

I doubt that it would be worth EA's time and resources if the houses could only be on Siege or Mugen.

I'm not sure it would mean less subs. It might just mean more houses and money for EA.

There is plenty of housing space isn't there?

 

[NuSair]

Ummm, no.

If it was a one time fee.....MAYBE, but if it was a monthly cost, I'd prefer the flexability that having multiple account provides.

 

[Kith Kanan]

If i can place em on the same shard yes.. if not no way... not even 25 cents

 

[Sarphus]

If it was a 1 time cost I might. I might not too and I have serious concerns that the devs could make a small mistake with that system and REALLY screw stuff up.

How upset do you think people would be if they placed a 2nd house and found that their original house went POOF? I'd sure be upset.

 

[Harb]

I'd pay $30 if a one time fee for an addtional, "redeedable" house. I'd pass if it were a monthly fee. I'd pay $10 for an additional vet reward choice. Also $10 for a tailorable item once imbuing goes in. I'll pay $30 for a new SA box. For what's it's worth

P.S. Before any of this should occur however, the codes store needs to function!

 

[MalagAste]

I think of it this way..... I might pay an extra 3 bucks a month for a second house... Or a one time fee of 19.99 to have a second house.... but I am not sure I'd do it if the house had to be on another shard.... though I might consider it.

 

[Strawberry]

I'd pay for a second-house token. However, I think we should be able to own a certain number of tiles per account, so some could choose to have castles, others would choose to have a couple mediums or several smalls.

ONLY if the 2nd house had to be placed on a DIFFERENT shard, ie. only 1 house per shard still.

A restriction like that is just asking for trouble. Bert plays on Atlantic, Ernie on Sonoma. They agree to cross-shard hold each other's second houses. Then Bert disappears or decides to steal Ernie's stuff. Ernie bothers customer service and posts many threads here. Now multiply that by many accounts.

 

[Flora Green]

One time fee, YES. And I would likely still keep my second account open. Recurring cost, unless it's a dollar or two, NO.

I seem to recall an official EA/UO poll in my e-mail a few years ago asking if I would be willing to pay extra for an additional house and a discussion of it on Stratics. Of course nothing came of it.

 

[MoonglowMerchant]

One time fee, YES. And I would likely still keep my second account open. Recurring cost, unless it's a dollar or two, NO.

I seem to recall an official EA/UO poll in my e-mail a few years ago asking if I would be willing to pay extra for an additional house and a discussion of it on Stratics. Of course nothing came of it.

I can understand the reluctance to mess with the housing code. Breaking housing would be very, very bad.

I think it would be a great option to pay a one time fee for a second house though. There was a time when there wouldn't have been enough room to place but at this point, I think everyone could add a second house without running out of room.

 

[RoycroftLS]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I really frown upon the growing trend of certain in-game bonuses/perks available only through real life dollars, with each new proposed bonus slightly more game imbalancing than the last.

I don't mind that you can pay to change your character's name, or gender. Those are superficial vanity changes. And at least with things like advanced character tokens you can still get the same results in game if you choose to spend the extra time.

It's the other bonuses that worry me. Mind you, I don't feel that an extra character slot, 20% extra storage, or a second house per account individually makes things unbalanced. But it's unsettling to me to think that one account plus $xx spent on bonuses can have superior gameplay compared to one unmodified account.

In my view, if they are going to offer those things for sale, there should also be an in-game mechanism to obtain the same reward. I don't care how difficult, tedious, or ridiculous that mechanism is. The game shouldn't only reward those who have the deepest pockets.

 

[GarthGrey]

EA better start selling us gold before they think about selling extra houses...imo.

 

[Gildar]

One time charge, and the ability to place both houses on the same shard? Most definitely I'd buy it! But I'd also strongly urge EA to reconsider, since I know they'd lose lots of money from the accounts that would close because of this.

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

Not really, the first time around in UO, from the day it went live to about 8 months after Trammel went live, I had lots of stuff. I had purge every time they made changes.

The second time around, I have two 18x18x3 Houses, one on each account. The primary house has a total lock downs/secures used of 431. The secondary house has a total lock downs/secures used of 19.

In one sense I do not see that changing by any significant factor. If I wanted Vendors, I would put them on the secondary house and put gates were the open walk way is now.

 

[azmodanb]

I would say YES, if it's a one time payment, if it was a monthly thing, I would just continue to pay for my second account, and do it that way.

I would even pay up to 49.99 for a second house, if it was a one time deal.

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

I assume the implied change that would go with this, would eventually get around to the Co-Owner issues. If not for all, then certainly for some.

 

[Lore Master]

Now that the process of fixing RoT is finally in motion, the last obstacle to a population increase on Siege is the limitation of one house per account.

Of course you wouldn't have to place the extra house on Siege, you could place it on any shard. However, it would provide an option for those interested in a different UO experience.

Oh, and it would make money for EA. They like that.

yes but on a few conditions heres a list of my conditions.

1. If it was a one time fee.
2. if i can get my second house on the same shard i play and already own a house on.
3. if you can place your second house on any shard you want includeing the same one you own a house on so you can have two houses on the same shard and account

if those conditions where allowed then yes i would gladly pay a one time fee for a second house per account making it 6 houses instead of 3 on the same shard.

 

[Lore Master]

Now that the process of fixing RoT is finally in motion, the last obstacle to a population increase on Siege is the limitation of one house per account.

Of course you wouldn't have to place the extra house on Siege, you could place it on any shard. However, it would provide an option for those interested in a different UO experience.

Oh, and it would make money for EA. They like that.

yes but on a few conditions heres a list of my conditions.

1. If it was a one time fee.
2. if i can get my second house on the same shard i play and already own a house on.
3. if you can place your second house on any shard you want includeing the same one you own a house on so you can have two houses on the same shard and account

if those conditions where allowed then yes i would gladly pay a one time fee for a second house per account making it 6 houses instead of 3 on the same shard.

oh one more condition if my second house can be any type house or size house. i don't play Siege nor will i ever play Siege i don't like pvp the only way to make this fair is to allow these rules on all shards.

 

[Loqucious]

Heck yes!!!!

 

[Redxpanda]

I don't think it would work. People are not going to want to pay and the secondary house would have to have size limits in all fairness to those who only play there.

 

[Sir Stain]

My vote is yes if it is for the seige players and NO for the rest. I am against too much housing and think it should be limited to 14x14 or less size buildings. Housing should be more difficult to obtain for example . You should have to build the thing from the ground up using available resourses and with a carpenter. Not just gold! 100k logs would be about right and 50k stones. Remove castles or have a castle built by a guild with 50 members or more.

 

[Richtor Darkbane]

won't happen to many subscriptions would drop off...

I don't want to see second houses for a one time fee..

 

[kdawn79]

How about osi owned houses that can be RENTED for in game gold? you sign a contract and they charge more or less depending on location and local demand. Gold sink anyone?

 

[Starla]

If it is a one time payment, I would pay and immediately cancel a house-holding account.

The implication of this is that alot of players with house-holding accounts will be doing the same thing and that will cost EA their monthly income from recurring subscriptions.

 

[MalagAste]

If it is a one time payment, I would pay and immediately cancel a house-holding account.

The implication of this is that alot of players with house-holding accounts will be doing the same thing and that will cost EA their monthly income from recurring subscriptions.

Oh I like to think I would too..... but you know.. something will ALWAYS come up and I'd always find one excuse or another to keep this or that account open..

 

[Gwendar-SP]

It depends on what jeremy means by "yet". I was leaning back towards positive after the last town meeting - about ready to expand two more houses even. If EA is thinking of removing guards for any length of time there will be many more housing slots opening up on Siege.

If things become positive I'd love more houses.

 

[Idahoan]

One time charge & on another shard than first house is on... YES!!!

 

[Maplestone]

Don't we have enough inactive warehouses dotting the land?

I would rather see an account-shared bankbox rather than an extra house. Houses should be a little more special (not that I take good care to make mine interesting and dynamic)

 

[Still Frame]

Now that the process of fixing RoT is finally in motion, the last obstacle to a population increase on Siege is the limitation of one house per account.

Of course you wouldn't have to place the extra house on Siege, you could place it on any shard. However, it would provide an option for those interested in a different UO experience.

Oh, and it would make money for EA. They like that.

A $10 or $20 free to turn off my second account? Why not!?